WoRMS name details
Chiridota rufescens Brandt, 1835
211002 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:211002)
unaccepted
Species
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Brandt, J. F. (1835). Echinodermata ordo Holothurina. <em>In: Prodromus Descriptionis Animalium ab H. Mertensio in Orbis Terrarum Circumnavigatione Observatorum. Fasc. I: 75 pps. Petropoli.</em> pp. 42-62., available online at https://books.google.com/books?id=9-KK6BsniXcC [details] 
WoRMS (2024). Chiridota rufescens Brandt, 1835. Accessed at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=211002 on 2024-04-19
Date
action
by
2000-09-21 07:28:19Z
changed
Garcia, Maria
The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
original description
Brandt, J. F. (1835). Echinodermata ordo Holothurina. <em>In: Prodromus Descriptionis Animalium ab H. Mertensio in Orbis Terrarum Circumnavigatione Observatorum. Fasc. I: 75 pps. Petropoli.</em> pp. 42-62., available online at https://books.google.com/books?id=9-KK6BsniXcC [details]
source of synonymy Thandar, A. S. (1989). A study of two apodous holothurians from Southern Africa. <em>S. Afr. Tydsk. Vir Wetenskap.</em> 85: 451 - 454. [details]
source of synonymy Rowe, F. W. E.; Gates, J. (1995). Echinodermata. <em>In ‘Zoological Catalogue of Australia'.</em> 33 (Ed A. Wells.) pp xiii + 510 (CSIRO Australia, Melbourne). [details]
source of synonymy Thandar, A. S. (1989). A study of two apodous holothurians from Southern Africa. <em>S. Afr. Tydsk. Vir Wetenskap.</em> 85: 451 - 454. [details]
source of synonymy Rowe, F. W. E.; Gates, J. (1995). Echinodermata. <em>In ‘Zoological Catalogue of Australia'.</em> 33 (Ed A. Wells.) pp xiii + 510 (CSIRO Australia, Melbourne). [details]
Present Present in aphia/obis/gbif/idigbio Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From other sources
Remark Type data: status and whereabouts undetermined. Type locality: Bonin Ils (as 'in insulis Bononsimensibus') (Rowe & Gates, 1995). [details]Synonymy Clark has proposed in 1963 to supress the name 'fusca', arguing that 'rufescens' was better known. Cherbonnier argues against this, indicating that the original holotype for fusca still exists, and that it had been redescribed in 1952 by himself. But Rowe & Gates, 1995 reject this statement. [details]
